[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: closed One Project. One PAB. One List]







Amadeu,

As usual, what you say makes good sense. As the marketing community
perceive value in the domain name system, whether technically unique at
the numerical level or not, it gives rise for the need for the legal
apportionment of rights and some understanding of those amongst the
technical community to maximise their own commercial benefit. It seems
to me that a businessman interested in furthering his own interest is
going to want to know what is going on in all areas, whilst a systems
administrator may rely on advice. I'm surprised that the possibility of
educating the marketers and lawyers isn't being seized on  more clearly
(perhaps it is?).

MM

Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> 
> Some dozens messages ago, Mark Polansky wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure the lawyers on this list don't give a hoot about all the
> > technical issues y'all are discussing, as the techies don't care
> about
> > the legal issues.
> 
> Couldn't disagree more. Sure I won't wirte a single line of database
> management software, but, as a lawyer, I'm interested at understanding
> the feasibility of any technical solutions for registrar's operation,
> and the possible drawbacks of any given solution. And, above all, I'm
> not in this list as a lawyer or a University professor or a soccer
> fan,
> but as a represetnative of an organization that's interested in the
> setting up of a new  DN space and a new registration system, as well
> as
> a new governance structure. As far as I can  see, this IMPLIES
> necessarily TECHNICAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, LEGAL and MANAGERIAL decisions.
> 
> For the new sustem ot work, we need overcoming any partial view.
> (Last Monday at the EC meeting, the representative from RIPE NCC just
> dismissed the whole IAHC(gTLD-MoU/IINDRA/???? system because *the
> Internet does not need names, just IP addresses*. True, but I wouldn't
> like letting the techies to take such decisions!!!!)
> 
> Let's take the *e-mail vs on-line operation* issue. Do you really
> think
> it's a pure tehcnical issue? Don't you think that this is also an
> importnt *administrative* choice for the whole system to opt for a
> given
> solution (or allow both)? Is it only a tehcnical issue, or does it
> bear
> huge financial implications for new registrars? Don't you think that
> there are clear *legal* implications of any such technical decision?
> What about solving conflicts among conflicting registrations coming
> from
> the different procedures? And so on....
> 
> Now imagine that we split the list, even in the minimal porposal form
> Dave C.:
> >
> >        pab-tech
> >        pab-legal (or perhaps you want -policy, or -admin instead?)
> >        pab (instead of general,
> 
> Outcome? Ane conscious representative of any wouldbe registrar should
> subscribe to the trhee subsets. Any consious representative of any
> organization wishing to fully participate in the setting up of the new
> system will subscribe to all of the subvv-lists. And any conscious
> representative advocating for. let's say, the need to allow both
> e-mail
> and on-line registration SHOULD send every message to pab-tech, ....
> and
> *carbon copy* it to the other sub-lists!!! (and most of us will end
> with
> three times as much mail as before).
> 
> Please don't split the PAB. We need the joint efforts of everyone
> here,
> techies, businessmen, and even lawyers.
> 
> And, BTW, you can always skip the 35 last messages of any given
> thread,
> can't you?
> 
> Amadeu